Science isn't the only tool for falsifiying. There's logic. But the Dude is too dumb and arrogant to understand this point.

Ah, but "logic" is more akin to math or philosophy. Like math it often relies on axioms, and the outcome can vary dependent upon the axioms. For example, a mathematical model of a 2-dimensional universe can be "logical". And you can throw all the numbers you like at it and it'll still work (as long as you don't suck at math). But it doesn't have any bearing on our reality. Same if we take the philosophical approach, as philosophical arguments for and against (insert whatever you like here) will usually claim to be "logical". Except that neither side in a philosophical argument can really prove their opinions are the "right" ones. And those arguments don't necessarily fall because of the opposing philosophical position, but often because they break their own rules (such as the creationist "everything must have a cause" argument).

So if you're gonna give me some math, then gimme some math. Otherwise if you're gonna take the philosophy route, then I remind you that philosophy is to science as what ornithology is to birds. In other words, outside one's own personal subjectivity, philosophy is bollox.(shrug)

<quoted text>Why do you insist that this conceptual word that has absolutely no meaning must still be defining any entity that is at all possible? If it's meaningless then consideration of existence is absurd. Isn't that enough?

It's not necessarily meaningless, just not well defined. Which throws it into the non-falsifiable category. Isn't *that* enough?

And "absurd" is a more subjective term here. For example, I think the chances of me being an assassin robot in disguise from the future is even more absurd than the possibility of some alien entity somehow creating the universe. Yet the time-travelling robot is the more scientific claim.

<quoted text>Whoa thar bub. Who said omnipotence? You did.Behe thinks God is dead. Ain't very impressive for an omnipotent entity. But hey, he might be right.<quoted text>Exactly. You're attempting to lead me into paradoxes which may not even apply to said being. It could easily be finite, non-omnipotent and non-paradoxical. We just don't know anything about it yet.

Not trying to "lead" you anywhere necessarily.

You asked for demonstrable evidence and I ask how you demonstrate that impossible paradoxes are impossible (you just didn't like my example, but then you also didn't like 4-sided triangles or any other example of impossibilities as it puts you too much on the spot).

According to your logic, if I can't demonstrate they're impossible, then they must be considered possible. That's your entire argument, right?

And I'm still waiting on a set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, you claim such an entity is possible.

<quoted text>Why not? The term is most associated with the enigmatic creator of our universe, whatever that may be. Hence why there are different philosophical/theological views on it. Take things like Spinoza's God or deism (which can often be rather nuanced and vary wildly from individual to individual).Beats me. Not too sure how many different ways you want me to say the same things though.

The very idea that there is no agreed to definition of the term "god", that each person is free to make up whatever they wish about their version of "god" and change it on a whim, would be further evidence that the concept itself is meaningless.

But this isn't about everybody else's definition, it's about YOURS. As you say, the term varies from individual to individual. So, what are the set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, YOU CLAIM such an entity is possible.

And I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, so much as think about your claim. We far too often give "possible existence" a 'wink and a nod' as it were when the word "god" is invoked, without really thinking about how meaningless the word is.

We don't do that for other absurd claims, well at least normally we don't ... How about faeries -- are you agnostic about faeries at the bottom of your garden or are you an afaeriest? Shall I go through a long list of absurd things and see which you're agnostic about?

Every "god" yet invented has been absurdly ridiculous. Doesn't mean that all possible definition will always be for all times, but it does provide a solid foundation that to assume otherwise without evidence is not sound logic.

You know you keep asking for evidence that "god" is impossible ... well, here's your evidence, and by your own words.

If I accept your assertion that the definition of the word "god" will "vary wildly from individual to individual", which I do most whole-heartedly accept, then you are in fact saying that there is no definable meaning for the word. Further, if the word "god" does not in actuality signify any specific concept, then it is meaningless. Meaningless concepts cannot be said to possibly exist.

Thank you for so clearly providing evidence that "god" is a meaningless concept.

Not trying to "lead" you anywhere necessarily.You asked for demonstrable evidence and I ask how you demonstrate that impossible paradoxes are impossible (you just didn't like my example, but then you also didn't like 4-sided triangles or any other example of impossibilities as it puts you too much on the spot).

Except it doesn't. It does not have to conform to creationist cliches. You would like it to so you can say "Ha look! It's impossible!"

Hedonist wrote:

According to your logic, if I can't demonstrate they're impossible, then they must be considered possible. That's your entire argument, right?And I'm still waiting on a set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, you claim such an entity is possible.

Well other than some kind of intelligence and ability to create universes I don't actually claim any properties.

<quoted text>The very idea that there is no agreed to definition of the term "god", that each person is free to make up whatever they wish about their version of "god" and change it on a whim, would be further evidence that the concept itself is meaningless.But this isn't about everybody else's definition, it's about YOURS. As you say, the term varies from individual to individual. So, what are the set of properties for an entity which could possible exist that YOU would consider a "god"? After all, YOU CLAIM such an entity is possible.

How about some new undiscovered animal deep in the African bush? Or the deep ocean? Other than not violating physics or nested hierarchies I have no idea what properties it may have. Those properties may even be bizarre and unexpected. The Skippy approach is say it's impossible because there is no evidence yet. I can't define anything about it other than the most rudimentary properties. But I reckon it's possible.

Hedonist wrote:

And I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, so much as think about your claim. We far too often give "possible existence" a 'wink and a nod' as it were when the word "god" is invoked, without really thinking about how meaningless the word is.

Actually I have thought about how meaningless it is. That's the reason WHY it's in the non-falsifiable box. If it's in there then it's not relevant to our current scientific knowledge. It may or may not become relevant at a later date. At least falsified concepts have meaning.

Hedonist wrote:

We don't do that for other absurd claims, well at least normally we don't ... How about faeries -- are you agnostic about faeries at the bottom of your garden or are you an afaeriest? Shall I go through a long list of absurd things and see which you're agnostic about?

Many things may well be absurd, or at least SEEM to be. Fairies I have no problem with. I'm not agnostic about them, not due to the simple lack of evidence but also because of the evidence AGAINST them. Placing them in our back garden makes them observable, yet not a shred of evidence. They're also a violation of nested hierarchies. They aren't particularly a violation of physics though, unless one attempts to cram a human-level intelligence into such a tiny brain maybe. Without the wings then in that case they MAY be possible, but if there's no way to falsify them they can just be thrown into the non-falsifiable box. If they got wings then into the falsified box.

The perceived absurdity (even if correct) has no bearing on whether something should be placed in the falsified, non-falsifiable, or falsifiable boxes.

Hey, platypi are absurd, but they exist.(shrug)

Hedonist wrote:

Every "god" yet invented has been absurdly ridiculous. Doesn't mean that all possible definition will always be for all times, but it does provide a solid foundation that to assume otherwise without evidence is not sound logic.

And no assumption is made. For saying something may POSSIBLY exist is NOT assuming either that it does or it doesn't.

<quoted text>You know you keep asking for evidence that "god" is impossible ... well, here's your evidence, and by your own words.If I accept your assertion that the definition of the word "god" will "vary wildly from individual to individual", which I do most whole-heartedly accept, then you are in fact saying that there is no definable meaning for the word. Further, if the word "god" does not in actuality signify any specific concept, then it is meaningless. Meaningless concepts cannot be said to possibly exist.Thank you for so clearly providing evidence that "god" is a meaningless concept.

And people's baseless opinions have no bearing on what IS. A god MAY exist or it may not. The concept IS currently meaningless BECAUSE it's in the non-falsifiable box. But that alone does not make something "impossible".

<quoted text>Actually it is quite easy to simply have a lack of belief in God.Skippy on the other hand is the atheist of your dreams - the atheist who positively asserts, and believes, that no God exists.

The person you describe would be more appropriately defined as a non believer, and not as an atheist. He may also lack theism, and that would make him atheist too.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.